Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (98121)	3/11/2000 11:21:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580614

Re: the case was arbitrated, not tried in a court of law... I haven't studied the issue - and while you obviously know more of the details, you may also be slightly biased (and appropriately so, since you do work for Intel). Without knowing the details, or having seen any of the agreements, my general understanding is that Intel was granted this business by IBM with the understanding that they would always allow second sources to exist. Later, Intel managed to get of the deal (a deal made more with IBM than AMD). It certainly was a nice deal for AMD, though it did distract them from a very successful business. Remember that at one time many high end systems were built from AMD's "bitslice" processors. When AMD was providing the cores for mainframes, Intel was providing the cores for handheld calculators (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit there, but there is truth in that statement :-) Bottom line is, Intel gained this business by promising to not be a monopoly supplier, then weasled out of its agreement. It's all history now, anyway, and it's hard to blame Intel for seizing one of the great business opportunities of the late 20th century - but don't try to get us to cry for Intel - if they didn't like AMD as a second source, why didn't they line up an alternative supplier? Dan